Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful constraint (preserve attribution and wording) but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or how the limit interacts with matching, leaving real behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the targeting guidance. No filler, though the 'Legacy tests also supported' clause is terse to the point of being ambiguous.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a 6-parameter search tool with 17% schema coverage, the description leaves too many parameters and the block/run selection rules underspecified to be fully self-sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 17% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It gestures at blockId/runId via 'IDs from list_test_blocks' and mentions defaults, but query, limit, testId format, and testerName are left entirely undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search participant quotes') plus a behavioral constraint ('preserve attribution and wording'), which sets it apart from retrieval-style siblings like get_transcript and get_question_responses. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use IDs from list_test_blocks to target a block/run' gives workflow context, and the legacy-test note implies a fallback case. However, there is no statement of when to pick this over get_transcript, get_question_responses, or list_insights, so usage is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.